multiple searches of rooms

[Cakeking]

i am new to dm'ing and i don't know if this is normal but..

The party size is 6, and every room and door they come to 2-3 people search it so that they will succeed with a higher chance.

i feel like there should be some sort of downside to that tactic but i cant really think of anything appropriate if anything at all.

So should i just let it happen? or is there something i should do like random encounter?

i don't really use traps much so the super careful approach is strange, and i dont hide treasure much either

[Iceking]

i am new to dm'ing and i don't know if this is normal but..

The party size is 6, and every room and door they come to 2-3 people search it so that they will succeed with a higher chance.

i feel like there should be some sort of downside to that tactic but i cant really think of anything appropriate if anything at all.

So should i just let it happen? or is there something i should do like random encounter?

i don't really use traps much so the super careful approach is strange, and i dont hide treasure much either

If they want to search, let all of those who want to search roll. Then look to what they rolled. If 5 search and more then half fail, then no one found something. if half of them succeed, then the group found something.

[Waffle_Iron]

When more than one person is searching, there really is a better chance of success. That's good, it encourages teamwork.

If you're allowing multiple attempts, that's a different story. Don't allow that, just say no.

The thing about searches is that they come in two basic flavors, optional and necessary. Avoid necessary searches. If the PCs succeed, ok, whatever, they had to to drive the story forward. If they fail, well, game over, pack up your dice, bad guy wins.

If a search is required to drive a game forward, don't have a roll, just describe the effects of a success, because that's what you are going to end up doing anyway. Dice rolls are for when success or failure matters.

Do the PCs miss a clue as to the next location to investigate? Probably not cool. Do they miss a clue as to the identity of the BBEG? That's probably ok to let go.

Some examples of search rolls that ere acceptable as failures include:
The secret treasure room guarded by basilisks
The clue leading to the red herring adventure
The book in the library with hints on how to make the temple traps easier to avoid

[OldTrees1]

When more than one person is searching, there really is a better chance of success. That's good, it encourages teamwork.

If you're allowing multiple attempts, that's a different story. Don't allow that, just say no.

What do you do if 3 people each want to individually search the entire room? I understand not allowing anyone to search twice.
What do you do if 3 people want to search the entire room together (divide and conquer)?

In the first case I would make it either take longer(waiting so as not to get in each other's way) or be harder(get in each others way)
In the second case I would either randomly choose who might find each thing (divide and conquer) but make it take less time or I would make it easier(primary searcher + assistants)

[Cakeking]

In the first case I would make it either take longer(waiting so as not to get in each other's way) or be harder(get in each others way)
In the second case I would either randomly choose who might find each thing (divide and conquer) but make it take less time or I would make it easier(primary searcher + assistants)

I gave them disadvantage because they would get in eachothers way and everyone was mad and thought that unfair, they didnt want to divide and conquer, they wanted to each separately search

[Waffle_Iron]

Remember that each search also takes time. If the kidnapped prince is buried in a coffin, running out of air, remind the players of that. Also remember to make a show of rolling for a chance to use the random encounter chart during each search. Planned encounters earn EXP, random encounters do not. Your players will self regulate.

[Basch]

I've found that running it as a group check works well. I also drop the DC by 1 for every person beyond the 1st that searches.

[Inevitability]

Remind them that it might be better to use the Help action to search, which allows the person with the highest modifier to roll with advantage. Mechanically, it's almost always better than two people searching the room on their own.

Of course, it'll reduce your problem but not remove it. After all, instead of six people all searching the room, now you'll have the three best searchers searching the room aided by the three worst ones. Really, the only solution if you don't want them to search everything multiple times seems to have an OOC chat with your players.

[Slipperychicken]

Having some people look for traps and secrets, while others keep watch? They're just being smart and careful, like they should be. It's an insecure DM who looks for reasons to punish intelligent play.


Having more people searching is a actually beneficial; there's a reason why teams of people will look over a crime-scene. Multiple people aren't going to get in each others' way unless they're all cramming into a closet at the same time. With five or more feet between each other, the players have plenty of space to look and think.

If you're tracking the in-game clock, just deduct a minute, or a dungeon-turn or whatever each time they thoroughly search a room or hallway. That's all the penalty that needs to happen.

[JoeJ]

If too many people searching is making the game less fun just start using passive perception, justified as looking in the dozens or even hundreds of potential hiding places that an entire room would have (i.e. far too many to roll for them all individually).

[DivisibleByZero]

I do this (and all checks in general) very simply.
The first person to mention rolling a check for something gets to roll it. No one else gets to roll.
If someone else wants to help, that's fine, but there is only one roll made.

This alleviates the ""I check, too!" waterfall that follows.
No, you don't. You can help, but it was his idea and he is the one rolling it.

[OldTrees1]

I gave them disadvantage because they would get in eachothers way and everyone was mad and thought that unfair, they didnt want to divide and conquer, they wanted to each separately search

I think that was a fair ruling. They end up with 3 rolls at disadvantage looking for 1 success. Depending on the challenge that could be better or worse than having a single person check.

Does time matter? You could have offer it to take more time as they stay out of each other's way (probably not 3x for 3 people but some increase)

[Slipperychicken]

This alleviates the ""I check, too!" waterfall that follows.
No, you don't. You can help, but it was his idea and he is the one rolling it.

Why do you think that's a problem?

[Jarlhen]

I always divide a room into sectors in my head. If there's anything in the room I've already decided where it's going to be, in a desk, in a book case, whatever. If the PCs don't specify where they're looking I assign each person a sector of the room. I find it unlikely that they would be looking in the same places, I mean that's now how you look for things. It doesn't make sense. If people specify where they're looking they get a small bonus to it. Besides, looking for things is normally pretty easy. It's mostly when it comes to things that are naturally more difficult to find, like a written document or a single, small, piece of jewelry, that the PC rolls matter. Obviously also if something's hidden, but again since I know where everything in the room is and the PCs are, realistically, searching in different places then that means one person is normally also the only one rolling to find that particular hidden object. Of course exceptions exist, and if there is something like a hidden doorway or other major item then it might be that everyone who searches has a chance of finding it.

[DivisibleByZero]

Why do you think that's a problem?

Multiple reasons.
It slows down play.
It creates a situation where the 8 Int Barbarian (with absolutely zero reason to know who the Baron of some remote land is, for example) might know some obscure fact that the Bard with Expertise in his knowledge skill doesn't know.
But mostly because it slows down play, and I like the game to keep moving. When everyone always follows with "Me, too!" things get bogged down.
And really, when you do or see something, you don't generally announce that you're doing it or looking for it first. So in reality no one else is even aware that you're doing it until it's done most of the time.
In this case, the person that wants to help picked up on something and figured out what you were doing, thereby deciding to help you.
It's more realistic.

[SharkForce]

the best searcher gets a help action from the first person helping (and therefore gets advantage on the check). the rest can only reduce the amount of time it takes to search large areas.

as a result of being involved in the search, anyone searching counts as distracted for other purposes (so, for example, if enemies are sneaking up, they're not going to have as good a chance at perception checks to notice them - disadvantage on that. note that i'm not at all suggesting that every time they search, they get ambushed... i'm simply suggesting that if it someone is sneaking up on them while they are searching, the searchers are less likely to notice it, which is fairly likely to come up at some point unless they've been fairly stealthy so far).

that's how i'd rule.

[Renvir]

There are a lot of solid choices here for how you could handle this. I suggest running a couple of your favorites by your players. You are the GM and you make the rules but you'll get less resistance from them if they get a say in the matter. Once you choose one try it a few times and be willing to change it if you feel it is not working.

Just be willing to accept that players working together to achieve success is the point of the game and doing that well, and succeeding often, is not a poor reflection on you or your game design. It is a reflection of their teamwork.

[Thrudd]

This is why you keep track of time, and use wandering monsters or encounters in places that is appropriate. If the characters are in a dangerous place, let them search as long as they want. Searching a ten by ten area thoroughly should take a minute for one character, at least. Every ten minutes the party is in the dangerous place, or more or less often if appropriate, roll to see if a wandering monster, or guards, or whatever lives in that area, has come by. They can spend as much time as they want, sequentially individually searching an area, but the longer they take the more chance there is of monsters showing up. Tell them how long it will take one person to search over the whole room. The more characters that divide the work, the faster it will go, obviously.

If they are in a completely secure place with no chance of being attacked and want to search the room, ask them how long they want to spend searching and then let them all roll at the same time. The longer they spend searching, the lower the difficulty should get to find whatever it is. You might decide that if they spend an hour searching a room, that they will automatically find everything there is to find, or tell them the characters are sure there is nothing to find. You sum up that whole period of time in one sentence: "ok, you all search for an hour, you found A and B and are sure there is nothing else here."

This is also why you roll the searches secretly, don't let them roll it and don't roll it in front of them (or use the passive search score). The players should not see the die result, because a character would not know that they rolled low and might have missed something. The character only knows that they searched and didn't find anything. Perception, searching, diplomacy, knowledge, should all be rolled by the DM secretly to prevent meta-gaming based on low dice rolls. They say "I search the room", you roll the dice, check their search score that you have written down behind the screen, and then tell them what they found, if anything.

[OldTrees1]

I gave them disadvantage because they would get in eachothers way and everyone was mad and thought that unfair, they didnt want to divide and conquer, they wanted to each separately search

I did the math: 2-3 people searching independently & simultaneously rolling at disadvantage:
2(2d20w1)b1
Average: 9.8
Median: ~9
Above 5: 81%
Above 10: 44%
Above 15: 12%

3(2d20w1)b1
Average: 11.35
Median: ~11
Above 5: 92%
Above 10: 58%
Above 15: 18%

compared to 1d20
Average: 10.5
Median: 10.5
Above 5: 75%
Above 10: 50%
Above 15: 25%

So having multiple people search at the same time at the expense of getting in each other's way(disadvantage) takes the same amount of time but: Lowers extreme rolls(high and low) but only slightly affects the average.

So tactically it would be used when individual failure does not matter but the group wants a reliable check, and they are in enough of a hurry to get in each other's way. A reasonable strategy for searching rooms that don't look suspicious if there is a time limit.

4(2d20w1)b1
Average: 12.37
Median: ~12
Above 5: 96%
Above 10: 68%
Above 15: 23%

Although once you start getting above 2-3, then you start avoiding low rolls, increasing mid rolls, but not decreasing high rolls.

[Democratus]

Players like to succeed. Don't take that away from them.

If there's something you don't want them to find - don't put it where they can find it.

[coredump]

If a search is required to drive a game forward, don't have a roll, just describe the effects of a success, because that's what you are going to end up doing anyway. Dice rolls are for when success or failure matters.

dOr have the roll determine something other than success/failure.
Maybe it's the difference of how long it takes, or if they are careless and leave evidence they were there, or if they find the clue of who left it, or......

[OldTrees1]

Or have the roll determine something other than success/failure.
Maybe it's the difference of how long it takes, or if they are careless and leave evidence they were there, or if they find the clue of who left it, or......

degree of success
Ex: Finding the runic circle on the floor. Mid roll finds evidence of placements via dust/lack thereof. High roll notices the order the marks were made including some later additions/changes.
Ex: Potential complications see the "how long it takes, or if they are careless and leave evidence they were there" coredump mentioned

need to find at least 1 of N, higher roll reveals better/more of the options
Ex: Looking for a way out of the locked room. Low roll finds the disposal trap door. Mid roll finds the secret escape. High roll finds both.

disguising another check
Ex: The players need to find the document. They find them regardless but have the player roll anyways. Low roll finds nothing else. Mid roll also finds related, but forged, documents. High roll finds the related documents & their real counterparts.

[greenstone]

i am new to dm'ing

Welcome to this side of the table!


and i don't know if this is normal but..

The party size is 6, and every room and door they come to 2-3 people search it so that they will succeed with a higher chance.

i feel like there should be some sort of downside to that tactic but i cant really think of anything appropriate if anything at all.

The only downside of searching is time taken.

If the characters spend 30 minutes searching a room then that is 30 minutes more their foes have to prepare. It is 30 minutes of wandering monster encounters. If there are ten rooms and they search them all, then the dungeon takes 2 days to clear out. If someone has a 10-minute duration spell up then it wil expire and they won't have the advantage of it in the next battle.

I give the players a choice. "A quick search, assuming all of you are searching except one person on watch, will take 10 minutes, you get one roll at advantage. A full search will take an hour, you'll automatically find whatever's in the room, but I will make three wandering monster rolls, and those who are actually searching will all be surprised if foes arrive. Your choice?"